EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2006 All-mountain skis (Dynastar/Atomic/Head/Elan/Fischer)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2006 All-mountain skis (Dynastar/Atomic/Head/Elan/Fischer)

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
2006 All Mountain skis

Reviewers ability: high 8/low 9/racer
Reviewers height/weight: 5 foot 9 (175cm)/150lbs (69kg)
Conditions used: groomers/6” crud
Time used: 3 runs each
Fellow Tester: 68-year old guy, level 6+, skis fairly fast, not real dynamic: 5 foot 7, 170lbs

Skis are reviewed in order tested, over 2 days (with others thrown in, those skis are reviewed elsewhere)

Elan Magfire 10 168cm

The first offering from Elan that is using the new “Metron-like” sidecut. 125/75/109.. This ski replaces the S10 Fusion with 1 sheet of titanium. Also available is the Magfire 8, with the same sidecut, but no metal (just like the S8, which is still available next season with no changes)

First off, this skis is turny, as one would expect. Likes to be on edge, stable at short lengths (168 was plenty stable). It felt very similar to the B5 (reviewed later). Held a nice arc all over the mountain, and was quick and easy in crud. A bit less powerful and stable than the B5, but maybe a bit more ski than the M:11. This shape is easy to ski, but tiring for some-depends on how you ski. This should be a great swiss-army knife ski for anyone who needs a versatile 75mm waist ski and wants to turn easily, yet have a stable ski.

Note: this ski doesn’t replace the 666 (now called the Magfire 12). The Magfire 12 will remain Elan’s top do-it-all ski for strong skiers, with the 10 coming in for someone who can use a bit easier-turning ski that does well in all conditions. Based on myself and my fellow tester’s experiences the 666 remains the Elan for the top-end skier who has skill to make the ski perform, while the 10/8 will be appreciated by those who want a break occasionally, and will likely see the 10 as a “cheater ski” that will perform well under very little input, and reward good technique as well as forgive subpar movements. Please see my review of the 666 Fusion-those comments still apply.

Head Monster iM 77 Chip 170cm

New Chip flagship ski has been changed for 2006. It has a new shape (119/77/104) which results in a 16.5m radius (in 170cm). Liquid metal and construction differences for a lighter feel (some felt the 2005 Chip to be very heavy).

My thoughts: Wow-what a ski! Much lighter and livelier than the 2005 ski, but still the most stable ski in the test. Very UNLIKE the Metron or Magfire-much more at home in longer radius turns as well as fall-line work. This ski was superb in any turn radius-I could crank it tight, or let it run. It was at home flying down rough groomers at GS race speeds, as well as floating over crud at 30mph. The best crud ski tested-it wasn’t deflected like the shorter, turnier boards in the Metron mold. The Monster just seemed to float through anything thrown at it-a very confidence-inspiring ski! Smooth, powerful, light enough to change course, rock solid in 170. Edgehold was as good on this ski as any in the test-this ski simply didn’t have a weakness. For me, it was similar to my much beloved 666’s, but with more stability! I liked the fact that it was a tad turnier as well, and it seemed more forgiving. Flat out, the best ski tested.

Interestingly enough, my testing partner’s favorite ski was the 163cm Monster 77 chip: he said it was the most stable, yet one of the easiest skis in the test. He felt “I can do anything, and I am not getting tired!” He was skiing pretty darned fast on it too, and skiing really well. I found it interesting that 2 skiers of different ability levels would have similar things to say about the same ski.

Dynastar Legend 8000 178cm

The Legend 8000 is unchanged for 2006-why mess with a good thing? 116/79/102, R20m.

My thoughts: This was my first time on the much spoken-of 8000. It was a nice ski-very smooth. It had a very refined feel that took a couple of runs to be accustomed to-it didn’t like to be powered or driven hard such as the Austrian skis. Rolled easily into the turn, and liked to be skied from the ball of the foot, rather than driving the cuff. The 178 length was very easy to ski. Turned easily in crud, and always forgiving, not bad at all in bumps. Stability (compared to the Chip 77 in 170cm) was lacking, even in the longer 178cm length-the ski just didn’t have the beef to run with either the Chip or the B5 (or the 666 for that matter) It would be a great choice for the Western skier who wants a smooth, forgiving, high performance ski. Not for the super-aggressive, power skier used to race skis.

The Legend 8000 is a great option for the skier who wants a smooth, refined ski that is high performance and easy to ski, and is looking more toward the French offerings. The skier who goes for the powerful Austrian skis or the turny Metron/Magfire series probably won’t like the Legend 8000. It is unlikely a skier who is loves one ski would find the other as pleasing: like Marcellus Wallace’s wife said on “Pulp Fiction”: “Elvis fans can like Beatles, and Beatles fans can like Elvis, but nobody likes them both the same”. If you want a smooth, 80mm-ish all-mountain ride that is quite at home on hardpack, check it out. FWIW, my fellow tester really loved this in a 164cm: one of the best skis he tried. So, you can go short and get plenty of performance, especially if you stick more toward the groomed.


Dynastar Legend 4800 178cm

Again, unchanged for 2006. 114/74/102, R17m

My thoughts: Very nice-I really enjoyed this ski. Similar performance to the 8000, but a narrower waist and a little more edgehold. I didn’t notice a dropoff in performance, but it is $100 cheaper at retail. I felt that the 4800 was actually a better choice for many than the 8000: the 4800 does everything the 8000 does at a more reasonable price. If stepping up from the 4800, the next logical choice may be one of the higher-performance Austrian (or Slovenian) skis (unless one needed the extra waist width the 8000 offers). Great ski-what I said about the 8000 applies here, except that it is narrower underfoot and a bit quicker (the 8000 is plenty quick). Highly recommended.


Fischer AMC 76 175cm

New ski for 2006, replacing the Big Stix 75. More of a Metron-like sidecut with a 122 tip. According to rep, more of an “RX8” feel, with a more slalom-like quickness.

My thoughts: “It must be the tune” I kept telling myself. This ski was flat-out awful. Unstable, unforgiving, all over the place in crud. The ski was pushing me around-I tried to take it up on edge, and the ski fought back. I really had to ease it, otherwise the ski would balk. At high speeds, I felt like the edge would catch and toss me down-the sweet spot was very narrow (I got on this ski right after the Stockli GS race reviewed earlier, and the Fischer was actually more demanding!). I sort-of found a the (very narrow) sweet spot after a few runs, but even then, I was very glad to get off of this ski. I would say stability was way below par, and forgiveness was very poor as well. It held well up on edge, but did one dare to risk putting it up on edge and trusting the ski? Again, “it must be the tune”. I wasn’t a real big fan of the Big Stix series (except for the 8.0) but this ski is a step in the wrong direction!

FWIW, my fellow tester was on both the AMC 73 and 76 and those were his least favorite skis of the day-he thought they were hard to turn, demanding, and unstable compared to all of the other offerings.


Fischer AMC 79 170cm

New ski for Fischer-a cap at close to 80mm waist-definitely an all-mountain ski, not in the mold of the Big Stix 8.2 (that is more of a crud/deep snow ski, not so great on hardpack) or the 8.0 (a beefy twin-tip). This ski is designed to compete with the Monster 77’s, Metron B5’s, and Legend 8000’s of the world. According to the rep, it is the all-mountain equivalent to the RX9.

My thoughts: This is more like it! Night and day compared to the (IMO horrible) 76. This ski was solid, stable in arcs big and small, held well on edge, and could be skied with ease (tip and turn) or power (really driving the ski from arc to arc, like a race board). Smooth in crud (not quite like the Monster 77, but close) and more than passable in bumps. I would say this ski was “Monster-like” in feel, more GS than SL (as you can tell, the Monster 77 Chip is my new reference). No reasonable speed limit, and very forgiving-I never felt anything but relaxed on this ski. It definitely falls into the “power” Austrian camp of skis-right up there with the Monster 77 Chip and Elan 666 Fusion. Check out this ski, if you can find it. IMO, Fischer went 1 for 3 in their AMC 70mm-ish line up this year: this one is a triple, if not a home run.


Atomic Metron B5 162cm

Unchanged for 2006: you probably know something about this ski-plenty talked about here by Bears.

My thoughts: After the first 5 turns, my thoughts were “I need to get a pair of these!”. After 3 runs, the thoughts were “wow, this ski is wearing me out!”. I absolutely loved the first run on these-so quick and precise, and race-stock slalom stable at 162cm on hard snow. Super quick, as expected from an 11m radius. Super-stable, not unexpected given the advance billing of this ski. It was joy ripping down the groomers on this ski at mach speed, turning as quick as I wanted, feeling like a superhero. On smooth snow and up on edge, there is no limit to how fast you can ski this one. It doesn’t run flat well, no surprise there. This is the Atomic for good to excellent skiers, especially those who ski fast and have well-developed technical skills.

But, when I got this ski into crud, it wasn’t quite as good as the longer, more GS-like offerings (Elan 666/Head Monster 77 Chip/Fischer AMC 79). Length was probably at fault-I could ski crud just fine, but I didn’t have the same smoothness when getting bounced around like I would on a bit longer ski. Plus, I don’t enjoy a turny ski when in crud-the bigger turn-radius options seem to handle running at speed in those conditions better. Same goes for rough groomers-I felt myself getting bounced around just a tad. Bumps were OK, but the ski was pretty darned unforgiving of mistakes there-stiff tail. Overall, this is a really good ski.

Here is what I learned from testing the Metron’s: and why I PERSONALLY wouldn’t buy this ski: for me, the turn radius is limiting. The ski loves to be up on edge-it doesn’t do large radius turns well, nor is it relaxing. In an all-day ski, I don’t want to feel like I am on a race-stock slalom each and every run if I don’t want to. I much prefer a 14-16m radius ski that can go tight in the trees/bumps or go super-G arcs at high speed on the groomers. The B5 is turnier than I would like, and it wore me out by the 3rd run. I was having a great time, but I don’t NEED or want a ski that turny for all-day use. Sure, I can make this ski go in big arcs, but it isn’t as stable or as non-demanding in that situation as, for example, the Head 77 Chip. I still think, that for Western snow conditions, the all-mountain ski with a 14-16m radius is perfect. East Coast skiers may have vastly different requirements. If you wanted a versatile ski that was great on hardpack and does well at avoiding people on those crowded weekends, this may be your ski. If you want a ski to “turn for you” and make skiing easier, check out the Metrons (not the B5 though-get something less demanding). For my typical PNW day (3-4” of fresh snow, sometimes more, always less THIS season) and soft groomers that are cut-up by mid-day, I like a ski that can cruise with minimal input in long-radius turns. That isn’t the Metron series.

It seems that there are 2 distinct all-mountain theories being applied here: mid-length and mid-radius (more GS than SL) (Head Monster 77 Chip/Elan 666 Fusion/Fischer AMC 79/Dynastar Legend 8000)or short, turny, and all-mountain SL feel (Atomic Metron’s/Elan Magfires). Depending on your skiing style and location, you will likely love one or the other, but not both.

Atomic Metron M:11 162cm

Softer version of the B5, unchanged for 2006

My thoughts: Everything that I said above about the B5 applies to the M:11, except that this ski is a step down in stability. Not as stable at hardpack, and got quite jittery in crud. I easily found the speed limit on this one-if you ski fast or aggressive, look toward the B5. Still, this is a better choice for most rec. skiers. I likened this ski to the Magfire 10 from Elan-they were very similar, with the Elan maybe being a touch more relaxed, the M:11 more tightly-sprung. I thought the Elan was maybe a touch more stable-this ski would probably slide in just under the Magfire 10, maybe a Magfire 9 if one was made. Nice ski if you want a capable all-mountain ride that is turny and easy to ski. I didn’t like this ski all that much-it was a little unstable when pushed, considering it’s billing as a top ski.

Summary:
Lots of great skis!

My overall ranking is as follows, given overall performance, Western snow conditions:

1)Head Monster 77 Chip-does EVERYTHING as good or better than advertised-easily the best ski of the test.
2)Fischer AMC 79-similiar to the Monster, a little heavier and more demanding, not as "easy" but just as stable.
3)Atomic Metron B5-top performer in a turnier, but just as powerful and stable design as the Monster-preference for short turns + East Coast conditions could put this ski #1
4)Elan Magfire 10, Dynastar Legend 8000-great performers, one turny and powerful, one GS-like and smooth: both can do anything, but aren't top-tier performers underfoot an aggressive skier
6)Dynastar 4800-perhaps the best price/performance ratio in the test (along with Magfire 10)-keeps pace with the 8000 and is enough ski for most anybody
7)Atomic Metron M:11-a little less stable-great for less aggressive skiers, not for level 8/9
8)Fischer AMC 76 (the only ski reviewed that I would say “avoid”)
post #2 of 28
Thanks Dawg, great reviews. Do you anticipate any late-season deals on the Head Monster77s (with bindings)? Please let me know. I am very interested in a stable, but maneuverable crud-buster.
post #3 of 28
Thread Starter 
PM me...
post #4 of 28
Nice, dawg! Get to try the new Nordies?
post #5 of 28
Great reviews, seems like the Head 88 should be a great ski too, had a chance to ski that yet?
post #6 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
Nice, dawg! Get to try the new Nordies?
Sorry, but I wasn't able to-I crammed about 17 pair of skis into 2 days, so I couldn't get to ski everything!

Yes, I heard the new Head 88 is supposedly very nice-I saw several people trying it at the demo and everyone spoke very highly of it. The Head regional rep actually likes it better than the 77-he said it is very quick for a big ski and holds well on hard snow (he skis race skis 80% of the time, so I was surprised to hear that from him-he normally isn't a wide ski guy). I will try it, probably in the next month-conditions weren't great for testing wider skis. I also want to check out the Legend 8800, and K2 Outlaw (supposedly a much beefier ski than the somewhat dissapointing Recon).
post #7 of 28
Nice reviews, Seems like Head has some winners coming down the pipeline for next season. Are most of these skis Systems?
post #8 of 28
Great reviews!

strange comments on the Fischers, Dawg.

1) what's the BigStix 8.2 you referred to? new for '05?

2) the new BigStix 7.6 sounds like it needed a tune BADLY. any Fischer that feels flat and lifeless is probably tuned incorrectly.

3) can you share the lineups of products in the 75mm + waist category for each of the skis you tried?
post #9 of 28
Excellent Reviews
If any of you get a chance-add the new 2005-06 Nordica Top Fuel to your demo list. 123/78/108--16m turning radius. This is another fantastic "one quiver" ski. I have posted a review elsewhere of this site. (I'm not a Nordica rep!)
Patprof
post #10 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by patprof
Excellent Reviews
If any of you get a chance-add the new 2005-06 Nordica Top Fuel to your demo list. 123/78/108--16m turning radius. This is another fantastic "one quiver" ski. I have posted a review elsewhere of this site. (I'm not a Nordica rep!)
Patprof
This was my favorite ski of the 30+ I tried over 3 days. I am NOT a Nordica rep and my shop does not even carry Nordica skis yet.

This would be my western ski. Also like the Volkl AC3 and AC4 but the Nordica Top Fuel was the one I compared everything else to. Would not buy a Metron B5.

post #11 of 28
dawgcatching, I have a few questions if I may:

1) Is the Magfire 12 same dimensions as the M666?
2) Is it a Fusion ski or does it come non-Fusion (or both)?
3) Is it the same construction for both?

I ask because I had a chance to demo the M666 (Fusion) this weekend. As it turns out I was skiing my M662 on Sunday since my Elan HCX Hyper was getting a tune up (normally I would never ski my M662 at my tiny local hill). So here I had a chance to compare the M662 and M666 back to back (both in 168 length).

If there was an obvious difference is that the M666 lost some of that playful rebound that makes the M662 such a great ski (for me). While both skis are great at speed due to the GS-like construction, the M666 seemed a little harder to handle in short turns. Both handle carving on very hard hardpack extremely well for such a wide ski.

I guess I am also wondering if the Magfire 12 has regained some of that rebound. I am not a high speed freak, but I do love a good rebound.
post #12 of 28
part f my deciding factor with the skis that you listed would be in the binding. I am not a Marker supporter. Anything with a Marker (or variation) would get to the back of the demo line.
post #13 of 28
I've spent 3 days on the B5. I love it, but it sure wipes me out. Don't know if its the weight of the ski or something else. But wow, what a fun energetic ski.

If anyone has skied both the Head Monster IM75 and the IM77 could you tell us how they compare to one another in how they ski (I saw that the 77 is lighter and livelier than the 75, just wondering if there are any other differences as the IM75 is starting to go on sale).
post #14 of 28

Wiped out on B-5?

Sorry, guys,I cannot understand the "wiped-you-out" part of the comments.I have had over 60 days on the B-5s (albout 4 weeks at Park City, Heavenly and Telluride), skiing open to close with a half hour break for lunch, and stay fresh all day. In my opinion, they are very easy to ski and do what you want them to do. In fact, I had to intentionally ski hard in the bumps in the end of the day, just to get tired. At the little "pimple of a hill" in my back yard in Ohio, where I usually ski for about 5-10 hours every day, it could not possibly be an issue. By the way, any ski that I have tried, including those that I used to love, just do not "do it" for me. I am looking forward to demoing the next year's boards mentioned in the original posting on March 3 at a pro demo day, here at Boston Mills. (disclosure: I AM an Atomic hill advisor)
post #15 of 28
dawgcatching, thanks for the great reviews.
post #16 of 28
AE, what are your stats? I'm 165lbs, 5'11'' age 42 lvl 9 skier. I'm skiing the B5 in a 162. I'm not sure why, but on 3 different days (not in a row) my legs where very tired at the end of 4-5 hours of skiing crud and bumps. Much more so than normal. Maybe its all the tiny slalom turns I crank out. I love the ski, it just tires me out for some reason. And its heavy!
post #17 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzostrike
Great reviews!

strange comments on the Fischers, Dawg.

1) what's the BigStix 8.2 you referred to? new for '05?

2) the new BigStix 7.6 sounds like it needed a tune BADLY. any Fischer that feels flat and lifeless is probably tuned incorrectly.

3) can you share the lineups of products in the 75mm + waist category for each of the skis you tried?
Sorry, but that was my bad-I was referring to the old Big Stix 8.6, which is discontinued. I don't have a Fischer catalouge present at the moment for an update on their new line. I also don't have any info on Atomic-I just skied their most popular models, as there is alot of buzz around their all-mountain skis these days. Dynastar is unchanged, Elan is 999, 777, 666, Magfire 12 (666 Fusion w/different graphic), Magfire 10 (reviewed), Magfire 8 (same as 10 w/o metal). Head is Monster 88 (powerful big-mountain ski), Monster 77 Chip (reviewed), Monster 72 (narrower and a tad bit softer than the 77) and Monster 70 (softer than the '04 model as well), more of an advanced-intermediate ski. K2 is unchanged except for the Outlaw: 124/88/111, 19m radius, and is beefed up over the Recon.
post #18 of 28
Thread Starter 
I will try to review that, although I don't see the Nordica guys down here much-no accounts in this area....

Quote:
Originally Posted by patprof
Excellent Reviews
If any of you get a chance-add the new 2005-06 Nordica Top Fuel to your demo list. 123/78/108--16m turning radius. This is another fantastic "one quiver" ski. I have posted a review elsewhere of this site. (I'm not a Nordica rep!)
Patprof
post #19 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomB
dawgcatching, I have a few questions if I may:

1) Is the Magfire 12 same dimensions as the M666?
2) Is it a Fusion ski or does it come non-Fusion (or both)?
3) Is it the same construction for both?

I ask because I had a chance to demo the M666 (Fusion) this weekend. As it turns out I was skiing my M662 on Sunday since my Elan HCX Hyper was getting a tune up (normally I would never ski my M662 at my tiny local hill). So here I had a chance to compare the M662 and M666 back to back (both in 168 length).

If there was an obvious difference is that the M666 lost some of that playful rebound that makes the M662 such a great ski (for me). While both skis are great at speed due to the GS-like construction, the M666 seemed a little harder to handle in short turns. Both handle carving on very hard hardpack extremely well for such a wide ski.

I guess I am also wondering if the Magfire 12 has regained some of that rebound. I am not a high speed freak, but I do love a good rebound.
It is my understanding that the Magfire 12 is exactly the same ski as the 666 (with Fusion). Just a different graphic, the 666 will be offered flat, and the Magfire 12 w/binding. I didn't ski it because it supposedly hasn't been changed. Maybe get the 666 and mount a standard binding on it. I personally think the Fusion makes the ski more powerful, and that the 662 wasn't as stable, but that is just my opinion....
post #20 of 28
Scott-great reviews. Do you know if they have put the "liquid metal" into the 2006 iXRC 1100 [if that's what they are calling it in 2006]?
post #21 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robscapes
Scott-great reviews. Do you know if they have put the "liquid metal" into the 2006 iXRC 1100 [if that's what they are calling it in 2006]?
Yes, all of the skis with titanium will now have layer replaced by liquid metal. This will include the race skis.
post #22 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching
2006 All Mountain skis

Fischer AMC 76 175cm

New ski for 2006, replacing the Big Stix 75. More of a Metron-like sidecut with a 122 tip. According to rep, more of an “RX8” feel, with a more slalom-like quickness.

My thoughts: “It must be the tune” I kept telling myself. This ski was flat-out awful. Unstable, unforgiving, all over the place in crud. The ski was pushing me around-I tried to take it up on edge, and the ski fought back. I really had to ease it, otherwise the ski would balk. At high speeds, I felt like the edge would catch and toss me down-the sweet spot was very narrow (I got on this ski right after the Stockli GS race reviewed earlier, and the Fischer was actually more demanding!). I sort-of found a the (very narrow) sweet spot after a few runs, but even then, I was very glad to get off of this ski. I would say stability was way below par, and forgiveness was very poor as well. It held well up on edge, but did one dare to risk putting it up on edge and trusting the ski? Again, “it must be the tune”. I wasn’t a real big fan of the Big Stix series (except for the 8.0) but this ski is a step in the wrong direction!

FWIW, my fellow tester was on both the AMC 73 and 76 and those were his least favorite skis of the day-he thought they were hard to turn, demanding, and unstable compared to all of the other offerings.

8)Fischer AMC 76 (the only ski reviewed that I would say “avoid”)
Hello everyone. I stumbled upon this forum while searching for information on Fischer AMC 76 skis and was completely surprised by the posted review. My experience on the AMC 76 skis couldn't have been more opposite. I live in the Lake Tahoe area and have been demoing a variety of skis this season. I wanted to try the K2 Recon, but the shop was out. From the moment I mentioned the Recon, the salesman started pushing me in the direction of the AMC 76. He skis the Recon and is a big fan, but said that from the moment he tried the Fischer, he prefered it. So, since they had no Recons in the shop yesterday, I took out the AMC 76 and went to Kirkwood for the day.

I found the AMC 76 to be extremely fast, versatile, and stable. I got very little chatter at high speeds and was able to execute sharp, tight turns with minimal effort. I never once found myself fighting to control the ski. I had no issue steering the ski at very high speeds and never once experienced the reviewer's fear of catching an edge and being tossed to the ground.

As for stability and forgiveness, again, my experience was the polar opposite. I found the skis to be some of the most stable I've demoed this season. My first run of the day was extremely steep (for those of you who know Kirkwood, I started on Chair 6, the Cornice). Standing at the top, I was a bit worried about how the skis would perform, but they proved a dream. As I started down the trail, the skis just grabbed hold and I felt very sure of myself. I started with a wider turn and had no problems, so I tightening things up a bit and the skis responded admirably. Conditions were great yesterday with a mix of firmly packed groomers and loose fluffy stuff (not quite "powder", but this is the Sierras after all). The AMC 76 was great across all the terrain. I hit the bumps, the groomers, and a few bowls and the AMC 76 far exceeded my expectations - regardless of the terrain, pitch, grooming, or amount of "crud" on the slope.

I'd be very curious to hear from others who've tried the AMC 76. I'm seriously considering buying a pair. I'd also encourage anyone visiting this site to not discount the AMC 76 based on the review posted here. While I respect that reviewer's experience on the ski, my experience was the complete opposite. These skis are definitely worth a try!
post #23 of 28
Thanks for posting that! Given that the dawg liked the 79, he's probably right: It must be the tune.
post #24 of 28
Hey Dawg:

Just thought I'd give this thread a bump to remind you we are looking forward to your take on the Head IM88, K2 Outlaw, and a reprise of the Fischer AMC 76 test.

The Fischer freerides; Atua, Kehua, etc., would also be great to hear you impressions of.
post #25 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gotama
Hey Dawg:

Just thought I'd give this thread a bump to remind you we are looking forward to your take on the Head IM88, K2 Outlaw, and a reprise of the Fischer AMC 76 test.

The Fischer freerides; Atua, Kehua, etc., would also be great to hear you impressions of.
Will do! I am getting those demo models mounted up as we speak-the Outlaw's showed up today (box was trashed and bindings had fallen out, but skis were OK). Looking forward to getting more time on the 88's and AMC 76's again. I am almost positive it was the tune on those AMC76's: that was the worst-feeling ski I had skied in a very long time. After speaking to the rep, he said that other testers had similiarly negative reactions to that pair, which tells me that it was most certainly a tune issue. I did like the 79's though: if you like a real GS-truckin' feel in your skis, those will suit you well!
post #26 of 28
I think its too easy to get the Metron B5 and M11 too short, I know I made that mistake. I think in demoing the ski, you need to try your suggested length and also the next size up.
post #27 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Pugliese
I think its too easy to get the Metron B5 and M11 too short, I know I made that mistake. I think in demoing the ski, you need to try your suggested length and also the next size up.
Hi Phil:
I think your experience w/ the M11 in 162 does not apply to the B5 in 162.

The B5 will hadle more force, power and weight by virture of its power rods and stiff construction. It is the only Metron built that is totally diffferent from the others from a construction standpoint.

I might add to your suggestion to try your suggested length and the next size down as well as the next size up.

ps: Don't tell Highway Star i said that.
post #28 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Pugliese
I think its too easy to get the Metron B5 and M11 too short, I know I made that mistake. I think in demoing the ski, you need to try your suggested length and also the next size up.
It seems, from reading the RealSkiers review, that this might be even more true this year (with the lighter bindings). I know that I loved the 162 last year, but I'm thinking about a new pair this year, and wondering if I should go with the 162 or 172... I'm hoping to get on them as demos before I have to ski them, but, it's getting tight!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2006 All-mountain skis (Dynastar/Atomic/Head/Elan/Fischer)